Demographic Winter in Japan . . . And Beyond

[RCIAGraduate]

This is a pushy question but would universal child care (at least, 0-5 but offering after-school and summer care could be helpful for families as well) and paid parental leave (a year for mom, 6 months for dad) help alleviate and reverse those trends? Could government measures, especially the treasury help address this problem and even if it didn’t, wouldn’t it help families struggle less and help a few leave poverty (since they can more easily work with public child care access)?

 

[ATraveller]

This is a pushy question but would universal child care (at least, 0-5 but offering after-school and summer care could be helpful for families as well) and paid parental leave (a year for mom, 6 months for dad) help alleviate and reverse those trends? Could government measures, especially the treasury help address this problem and even if it didn’t, wouldn’t it help families struggle less and help a few leave poverty (since they can more easily work with public child care access)?

No. Because Hungary and Poland are throwing a lot of money into this along with Scandinavian countries doing the same for decades and they continue to see below replacement birth rates. No significant rises have been seen in any of them.
Once one-child families have been normalized (culturally but governments in communist Eastern European nations did encourage fewer children), there’s no going back.
Helping alleviate poverty is still a good thing but don’t expect it to make people have more children.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I believe Japan’s doing it too but one town seems to be successful (guess it does take a village) but what about poor communities who don’t have the resources (tax base) to commit to such initiatives?

You’re Canadian right (sorry to put you on blast)? How’s the situation where you’re at? I heard Canada has its own child benefit and parental leave benefits/laws and doesn’t your state have stronger safety nets? What are your thoughts on the Conservatives (hypothetically) adopting a more pro-family policy like increased benefits and resources for families?

At the same time, are demographic declines so bad; wouldn’t this give society an incentive to support the poor children (and disadvantaged children in general like wards of the state) within their nations and societies who are more at risk of being forgotten and overlooked?

 

[JimG]

Once one-child families have been normalized (culturally but governments in communist Eastern European nations did encourage fewer children), there’s no going back.

Ultimately, fertility rate declines result in ghost towns and economic stagnation or worse.

 

[ATraveller]

I believe Japan’s doing it too but one town seems to be successful (guess it does take a village) but what about poor communities who don’t have the resources (tax base) to commit to such initiatives?

They are the exception rather than the norm. Plus one town has no real effect nationally.

You’re Canadian right (sorry to put you on blast)?

Yes.

You’re Canadian right (sorry to put you on blast)? How’s the situation where you’re at? I heard Canada has its own child benefit and parental leave benefits/laws and doesn’t your state have stronger safety nets? What are your thoughts on the Conservatives (hypothetically) adopting a more pro-family policy like increased benefits and resources for families?

Canada does have a better safety net compared to America. Those benefits have done nothing to increase the number of births. They’ve remained below replacement for a decade or two. I do support them on this because governments should be pro-family and real conservatives are supposed to be pro-family.

At the same time, are demographic declines so bad; wouldn’t this give society an incentive to support the poor children (and disadvantaged children in general like wards of the state) within their nations and societies who are more at risk of being forgotten and overlooked?

Fewer children doesn’t create incentives to help disadvantaged children. If anything, it would be an excuse to cut funding to help them and divert those savings to a pet project or something.

 

[niceatheist]

There’s a demographic phenomenon that occurs as the citizens of nations grow wealthier. People have less children. Even before the advent of the pill family sizes among the affluent and the middle classes were falling. As memory serves, this was even evident during the Industrial Revolution; that as median household incomes rise, families become smaller. In time it will happen in the developing nations as well, which is why we’re still predicting that global population will begin to flatten by the end of this century.

As flawed as an economy can be relying on non renewables, relying on population growth of even 2.1 children per woman (the average needed to simply sustain a population) is unrealistic.

The demographic timebomb is coming in part because of this. The post war baby boom is done.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

There’s a demographic phenomenon that occurs as the citizens of nations grow wealthier. People have less children

Yes and I understand people have less reason to have larger families, less people work in farms and people may be less inclined to look at having enough children as social insurance in the hope, one of them takes them in when they reach of a certain age and infirmity.

 

[ATraveller]

It’s a problem because we have a large population, a large chunk of it wanting middle class conveniences, and a global economy geared for continuous growth and profit. These require increasing use of resources coupled with ever-increasing energy returns, and immediately. What you’ve presented so far does not ensure these at all.

Middle class isn’t the same everywhere. And developing countries are in warmer and sunnier places.
Italy and Germany are hardly destitute countries.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This is what a lot of people notice when it comes to food:

Everything in America is known to be bigger than in Europe: the country, the cars, the highways, and the portions are no exception. Here, when asking for a small drink, expect what would be considered a medium or even large in Europe. And don’t be surprised to see that some restaurants, fast food chains, and cafes do not even offer small sizes and skip straight to the regular. Small in America does not exist. Go big or go home.
7 Ways American and European Eating Habits Differ

Europeans don’t use clothes dryers as often. A lot less. Hang drying is more common. And those who do own one, their driers are more efficient. (Europe's Clothes Dryers Consume Half As Much Energy As America's)

Europeans and Asians are much less car dependent too.

 

[ralfyman]

Middle class conveniences refer to things other than basic needs that lead to optimal health. Most countries in the world are still trying to meet basic needs, and that alone will require a lot of resources.

And that’s for the current population. Even with low birth rates and population aging in developed economies, the world population is expected to soar to 9-11 billion. The basic needs needed to support that population will require an additional earth.

At the same time, up to half of the same population is expected to obtain middle class conveniences that, even though less than what is consumed in developed economies, will require even more resources.

What you shared, then, actually shows that the situation is worse than we thought.

 

[ATraveller]

Middle class conveniences refer to things other than basic needs that lead to optimal health. Most countries in the world are still trying to meet basic needs, and that alone will require a lot of resources.

You still haven’t shown what that looks like. As I’ve mentioned, now for a third time, they vary from place to place. This is due to population density, cultural practices and geography/climate. You are arguing from a place of vagueness.

Even with low birth rates and population aging in developed economies, the world population is expected to soar to 9-11 billion.

I don’t think anyone is expecting it not to reach 11 billion as of now but the chances of the peak population falling short of that is growing in light of recent data. It won’t go over 11 billion so the concerns are overblown and people panicking for whatever reason like to panic.

The basic needs needed to support that population will require an additional earth.

That’s not what experts are saying. Only the population control cultists believe that.

What you shared, then, actually shows that the situation is worse than we thought.

According to you. Not so much for other experts.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

What are the reasons for disparity in carrying capacity? Why not just use biocapacity vs. ecological footprint?

What solutions? The Green Revolution was made possible through extensive fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts. Can that be maintained given the fact that oil discoveries peaked decades ago, oil production per capita peaked in 1979, and conventional production peaked in 2005?

The problem isn’t exponential population growth but increasing resource consumption per capita. We are looking at a growing global middle class, and in order to support the demands of that group we will need at least one more earth. What new technology will create that additional earth?

Well I guess it’s the end of the world then. Might as well off ourselves now.

 

[ralfyman]

Of course, they vary from place to place, but it is still a fact that most people lack basic needs. Governments deny that by using a poverty line of US$2 a day, leading to a poverty rate of only around 25 pct.

You’re getting confused. Not reaching 11 billion is not the same as going over 11 billion. And the point is that even with the current population biocapacity is now less than two global hectares. That population will continue rising to 9 to 11 billion even with population aging because of population momentum (look it up). And more people will seek not only basic needs but also middle class conveniences. The ecological footprint per capita needed to meet that exceeds biocapacity.

Finally, what you presented actually demonstrates part of my argument: according to Rosling a growing global middle class (i.e., prosperity) is what can keep the increase to 9 billion. But the biocapacity needed to do that involves at least one more earth.

 

[Peebo]

Look to the stars…that’s where some say our future lies…already plans are for populating the moon…mars…within the near future…look how far technology has come in the last 100 years…people wouldn’t have dreamed of what we take for granted…who knows what’s around the corner for us

 

[ATraveller]

That’s not what experts are claiming but sure.

Can 10 billion people live and eat well on the planet? Yes.

Heinz-Wilhelm Strubenhoff analyzes available data on food production and consumption to determine that conscious consumption and less waste in rich countries is a safe strategy to provide affordable food for all.

www.brookings.edu

This discussion makes me want to have 10 kids of my own. Maybe even 20.

 

[ralfyman]

The reason for greater productivity is mechanized agriculture, and that requires substantial fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts. The same goes for mining, manufacturing, and even shipping, and not just for mechanized agriculture but even for all sorts of goods.

That’s why the Netherlands has an ecological footprint of 5.28 and Nigeria only 1.16. If countries like Nigeria decide to follow countries like the Netherlands, then we’d need at least one more earth!

List of countries by ecological footprint - Wikipedia

 

[ATraveller]

The reason for greater productivity is mechanized agriculture, and that requires substantial fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts. The same goes for mining, manufacturing, and even shipping, and not just for mechanized agriculture but even for all sorts of goods.

So now you go back to fossil fuels when that was already discussed.
Still, what that shows is the current global population trend is sustainable regardless of how you interpret the flawed ecological footprint measure.
Since you’re so concerned about “overpopulation” despite the facts, what would you like to see? Euthanizing people en masse?

 

[ralfyman]

How can I not go back when the main component of mining (70 pct of operations), manufacturing (petrochemicals, coal, etc.), and shipping (fuel for container ships) involves fossil fuels? Are you claiming otherwise?

How is the ecological footprint measure wrong? What measure do you think is right?

Overpopulation is fact, and even the Church acknowledges that! That’s why it supports natural family planning.

Your last point is absurd. It is as if you are characterizing anyone who argues that overpopulation is a scientific fact supports killing off people. Besides, the fact that you are talking about sustainability shows that you are aware of the opposite!

 

[ATraveller]

How can I not go back when the main component of mining (70 pct of operations), manufacturing (petrochemicals, coal, etc.), and shipping (fuel for container ships) involves fossil fuels? Are you claiming otherwise?

Because fossil fuels can be substituted. We’ve gone through this already.

How is the ecological footprint measure wrong? What measure do you think is right?

A set of many measures is better. One simplistic one that makes a number of assumptions isn’t sufficient. There are massive differences between one area from another, one indicator from another.

Overpopulation is fact, and even the Church acknowledges that! That’s why it supports natural family planning.

I’m not Catholic so I’m not bound by the decisions or opinions from the Vatican. And artificial contraception and abortion is very widespread because it’s so widely promoted by those who are obsessed with population control.
There is no overpopulation crisis because most people in the West and increasingly in the developing world don’t want children. As we get closer to 2050, the indicators are pointing we may very well fall short of the sustainable 11 billion people.
Campaigns to suppress people from having children are dangerous. If you need the population to rise again, it won’t happen. The effects of those campaigns can’t be undone.
Honestly, telling the very few people who want to have large families to not have their large families is an evil thing. Just to avoid confusion, I’m not accusing you of this but that’s what population control activists do.

Your last point is absurd. It is as if you are characterizing anyone who argues that overpopulation is a scientific fact supports killing off people.

It was a joke and I was being light-hearted. I can see that it was quite dark. And I apologize for that.

Besides, the fact that you are talking about sustainability shows that you are aware of the opposite!

It’s about poverty reduction and maximizing potential for people. And if overpopulation were a problem, which it’s not, prices would be pushed up. But the thing is many sectors are avoiding scarcity through research and innovation. Malthus made the mistake of assuming no one cares about efficiency. And the neo-Malthusian position is doing it again. If exploitation magically ended right now, prices would force less consumption elsewhere. Not a crippling change, a change nonetheless but enough for things to balance out.

 

[vz71]

Overpopulation is fact, and even the Church acknowledges that! That’s why it supports natural family planning.

Prove it.
Provide the specific links to the dogmas that support what you have claimed.

 

[ralfyman]

What is that substitute? It has to have the same energy density as gasoline and diesel, an energy return that is as high as that of pre-1970s oil (equivalent to 100 barrels extracted for every barrel used), and provide petrochemicals.

Ecological footprint involves multiple measurements.

Your third claim is illogical because of population momentum. Also, there is nothing in what you’ve shared so far that shows that 11 billion is sustainable, or even lower. In fact, the same footprint shows that even the current population is barely sustainable.

There is no need to campaign for not having children because, as this thread shows, that’s already happening due to prosperity. The problem is that population momentum is still taking place even with it, and increasing prosperity negates whatever resource gains are achieved through population aging.

Finally, for similar reasons, it is pointless for activists to call for population control because poverty is what leads to larger families and prosperity is what leads to the opposite. That’s why birth rates are higher in poor countries than in richer ones.

The problem is that resource consumption is also higher due to prosperity. In fact, this was shown in the references to the Netherlands and Nigeria, where ecological footprint for the former is five times higher. If everyone tried to copy the former, we’d need at least one more earth.

About your last point, I agree, but you’re failing to see the interplay between population, poverty reduction, and resource availability. Population increase goes down when there’s poverty reduction, but that also leads to population aging. At the same time, poverty reduction means using more resources and energy per capita, which means we see the same effects as we would with increasing population. That’s why we have countries like the Netherlands, which face population aging but also use resources per capita many times more than most countries, and Nigeria, which has increasing population but also low resource use per capita per poverty.

Are you now beginning to see the complexity of this issue?

If you want to see that further, see it in light of your reference to Malthus. He lived during a time when industrial civilization was just taking off, which is why world population grew at a faster rate, until it reached 2 billion by 1945. But after that, the population shot up to 6 billion in only a few decades, many times faster than it did for thousands of years. Would you like to guess why?